Rice v Wicked Vision Limited; Barton Turns Developments Limited v Treadwell

In brief

Joint appeals on the interaction between s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 (whistleblowing detriment) and s.103A (automatic unfair dismissal). The Court of Appeal followed Timis v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321 (criticising aspects of its reasoning but considering itself bound). s.47B(2) bars an employee from bringing a whistleblowing detriment claim against their employer directly where the detriment relied on is the dismissal — that route is via s.103A. But s.47B(2) does NOT bar a detriment claim against a co-worker (e.g. the director who took the dismissal decision) under s.47B(1A), with the employer vicariously liable under s.47B(1B).

Key provisions

• s.47B(1A) + s.47B(1B) ERA 1996 — Co-worker whistleblowing-detriment route survives the s.47B(2) employer bar: A whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B(1A) against a co-worker (the individual decision-maker) is not blocked by s.47B(2). The employer is vicariously liable under s.47B(1B).

When relevant

Cases where adverse treatment ran through a protected disclosure and the claimant suffered both pre-dismissal detriments AND dismissal; allows the dual-route remedy with injury-to-feelings (Vento bands) available under s.47B(1A) that is not available under s.103A.